JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against judgment and decree dated 19.6.2002 rendered by the leaned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 48/94 RBT No. 35/2002. 2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that original plaintiff/predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) Shri Tulsi Ram filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (‘defendants’ for convenience sake), for declaration. According to the plaintiff, suit land was earlier joint between the parties. Vide mutation No. 134, partition had taken place which was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 20.9.1972 and after the partition area of 28 Kanal 12 Marla consisting of 5 plots came to the share of the plaintiff. Consolidation proceedings took place whereby old Khasra No. 625/197/440/18 was assigned new Khasra No. 79, though the area remained the same i.e. 16 Kanal 13 Marla based on old Karukaans. Other adjoining field as owned and possessed by the defendants comprising old Khasra No. 624/497/440/17, was given new Khasra No. 78 and its total area remained the same. However, during consolidation the Western side of Khasra No. 78 (new) 624/497/440/17 (old) was recorded as 25 Karams instead of 17 Karams as per the earlier record. As a result of increase on Western side of Khasra No. 78, as owned by the defendants, its area increased by 2 Kanal as there was apparent increase of 8 Marla on the Western side. In totality, area of the plaintiff in Khasra No. 79 was decreased by 2 Kanal, which was marked as Khasra No. 79/1 in the Tatima Shajra attached to the plaint. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants. They admitted that the suit land as comprising of Khata No. 18 was joint between the parties. On partition by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, they got separate and exclusive possession of their lands as per the respective shares. Defendants denied having made any encroachment in the land owned by the plaintiff during the consolidation. 4. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 28.4.1987. Suit was dismissed on 25.2.1994. Present appellants filed an appeal before the District Judge. He also dismissed the same on 19.6.2002. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 5. The present Regular Second Appeal was admitted on 16.9.2002, on the following substantial questions of law: “1. 4. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 28.4.1987. Suit was dismissed on 25.2.1994. Present appellants filed an appeal before the District Judge. He also dismissed the same on 19.6.2002. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 5. The present Regular Second Appeal was admitted on 16.9.2002, on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the findings of the court below are perversed based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence and the pleadings of the parties, particularly the Report of the Local Commissioner OW- 2/A and Tatima PW-2 confirmed on 16.8.91 after hearing the parties and against which order the revision filed by the defendant Civil Revision No. 205/91 Chetan Dass Vs. Tulsi Ram was dismissed on 8.5.92? 2. Whether in view of the fact that the report of the Local Commissioner OW-2/A which has been confirmed after hearing the objection and revision against which was dismissed by the High Court it was open to the trial court to ignore and discard the same and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff without having the boundaries demarcated in adjudicating the boundary disputes between the parties.” 6. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate has vehemently argued that the learned Courts below have misread the Local Commissioner’s report OW-2/A and thus the same could not be discarded by the learned Courts below. 7. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 9. Since both the substantial questions of law are interconnected as such were taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of evidence. 10. It would be apt at this stage to reproduce the order dated 30.6.1987, which reads as under:- “30-6-87 … D.R.O. Hamirpur is hereby appointed local commissioner to demarcate the land in Khasra No. 625/497/440/18 in Khata No. 18, old Khata No. 13 new and also to measure adjoining land, in order to ascertain whether defendants Sh. Chetan etc. have encroached upon the Khasra No. as above, if so, in what manner. The Local Commissioner should try to ascertain the correct Karukaans from settlement record in order to carry out demarcation…” 11. OW-2 Moti Ram was appointed as a Local Commissioner. He submitted his report, Ext. OW-2/A. 12. Chetan etc. have encroached upon the Khasra No. as above, if so, in what manner. The Local Commissioner should try to ascertain the correct Karukaans from settlement record in order to carry out demarcation…” 11. OW-2 Moti Ram was appointed as a Local Commissioner. He submitted his report, Ext. OW-2/A. 12. PW-3 Tulsi Ram testified that the defendant erected barbed wire and covered area measuring 8 Karams from the land comprised in Khasra No. 79. According to him, area on the Western side of the land comprising Khasra No. 79 has decreased by 8 Karams, which has resulted in decrease of his land to the extent of 2 Kanal as per Aks Shajra, Mark A. 13. DW-1 Bishan Dutt deposed that on partition, land comprising Khasra No. 78 which measures 10 Kanal 11 Marla, was allotted to him while land as comprised in suit Khasra No. 79 measuring 16 Kanal 13 Marla was allotted to the plaintiff out of the joint holding vide mutation No. 134. 14. Objections were filed by the defendant to the Report, Ext. OW-2/A. Report of the Local Commissioner was confirmed as per Order dated 16.8.1991. A Revision Petition was also preferred by the defendant against the order of the court confirming the report of the Local Commissioner, which was dismissed by this Court. Local Commissioner has carried out demarcation by visiting the spot, with the assistance of the revenue entries and entries made in the Shajra Lathha Istemaal, for the year 1979-80. 15. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate, on the basis of report, Ext.OW-2/A has vehemently argued that, as per this report, defendants have encroached upon the land denoted by Kh. No. 78/2 measuring 1 Kanal 16 Marla by virtue of increase in its karukaans. According to him, the Local Commissioner has observed that area of Khasra No. 78/2 was integral part of Khasra No. 79. Local Commissioner, as per Ext. OW-2/A had fixed points ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ on the land comprising of Khasra No. 257. It is from these points, he carried out demarcation of the other adjoining land to find out the exact location of Khasra Nos. 78 and 79, abutting each other. All the measurements were carried out from different points to the other points as shown in Tatima Ext. PW-2/E as points ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’, ‘I’, ‘J’, ‘K’, ‘L’, ‘M’, ‘N’, ‘O’, ‘P’ and ‘Q’. 78 and 79, abutting each other. All the measurements were carried out from different points to the other points as shown in Tatima Ext. PW-2/E as points ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’, ‘I’, ‘J’, ‘K’, ‘L’, ‘M’, ‘N’, ‘O’, ‘P’ and ‘Q’. He also measured Western Karukaans of Khasra No. 78 from points ‘J’ and ‘K’ and they were found correct as 11+14 Karams. He also measured other dimensions of the adjoining Khasra number, which were measured as per entries in Shajra Lathha, Ext. OW-2/E and they were found correct at the spot from ‘K’ to ‘O’, ‘P’ to ‘Q’ and from ‘Q’ to ‘O’. Location of Khasra No. 79 was correctly located as per dimensions shown in Shajra Lathha and no decrease in area was found. He has also not stated categorically that when area of Khasra No. 79 was measured, any part of it was found to have been encroached upon by the defendants by erecting barbed wire. 16. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate has further vehemently argued that with the increase of Khasra No. 78, as owned by the defendants, by 8 Karams, his area in Khasra No. 79 has decreased by 8 Karams on the Western side. Local Commissioner, in his report has mentioned that on measurement of suit Khasra No. 79 from point ‘K’ to ‘P’ it was found correct as 10+14 Karams. Thus, there was no encroachment made by defendants. It is not mentioned in Ext. OW-2/A that the area of the plaintiff on Western side of Khasra No. 79 was reduced by 8 Karams. Moreover, according to the plaintiff, total area of suit Khasra No. 79 was 16 Kanal 13 Marla with its dimensions as 92+92+40 Karams. If, land to the extent of 1 Kanal 16 Marla is taken from Khasra No. 78 then the total area of the suit Khasra No. 79 would come out to be 18 Kanal 09 Marla. The Local Commissioner admitted that if area of Khasra No. 78/2 is added to Khasra No. 79, it comes out to be 18 Kanal 09 Marla. Local Commissioner was not directed to point out whether part of Khasra No. 78 is part of Khasra No. 79 or not. In Mark A, Khasra No. 78 was shown extending downwards whereas in Ext. P5, Khasra No. 78 has been shown extending upwards by the Local Commissioner. Local Commissioner was not directed to point out whether part of Khasra No. 78 is part of Khasra No. 79 or not. In Mark A, Khasra No. 78 was shown extending downwards whereas in Ext. P5, Khasra No. 78 has been shown extending upwards by the Local Commissioner. Thus, it can not be held that the defendants have encroached the land of the plaintiff bearing Khasra No. 79 to the extent of 1 Kanal 16 Marla on account of change of Karukaans of Khasra No. 78 of the defendants from 17 to 25 Karams. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence. 17. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 18. Accordingly, in view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, the present appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.